Could you go 'download only'?

I can't believe you're willing to accept such a major change in the business model of the video games industry with absolutely no questions asked.

Au contraire, I've not only accepted it, I've already adopted it. I've not bought a game on a disc in a very long time. Why am I accepting it so freely? Because I know how much better it works.

Really, though, that's what this is about, isn't it? You don't like the model changing, even if it changes into something better, so you're trying to find any avenue you can to argue against it.

MCN wrote:I can't believe you're willing to accept such a major change in the business model of the video games industry with absolutely no questions asked.

I can't believe you're asking so many pointless questions.

You're equally guilty as Karlprof when it comes to entering this thread with a pre-conceived opinion and refusing to change it. The difference is that Karlprof has at least defended his viewpoint with evidence rather than fearmongering.

I'd be willing to bet - and I'm no expert on the subject - that the questions Karl may have asked about a download-only system, have already been answered. And probably a few years ago as well.

Every fear you've raised, he's given a sensible, logical answer.

In comparison, you've cited the fact that "billions" don't have access to high speed Internet. Regardless of where you get such figures from (I can't remember you citing any sources at all), you ignore the fact that "billions" are also, presumably, without consoles.

Face it - a lot of your fears have been proven to be unfounded, yet you seem to still peddle them as fact and not groundless opinions. Every one you presumably held before you even set foot into this thread and yet still refuse to back down on. Like when you entered the Street Fighter IV thread and tried to argue that it was backwards to only be able to fight the twelve characters in the roster...

It's not exactly wrong to be fearful of change, but to outright deny that technology hasn't progressed and will not continue to do so, is a an attitude reminiscent of a Luddite. Every time Karl debunks your argument, at best, you switch quickly to another. At worst, you accuse his pathetic reliance on evidence to be the result of staying in his room for twenty four hours a day.

Au contraire, I am perfectly willing to adopt the technology, as long as there are tangible benefits (other than not needing to leave the house, which is quite frankly sad). However, I do not work on assumptions about how things are going to play out. I will remain skeptical until things actually do play out in such a way. And not just for the few who are early adopters. After all, you don't build a business model purely around the elite few. For downloading to be worth it for me, we would need to see games bigger than a blu-ray could hold, so we're talking over 50GB. And we're going to need to see some MAJOR speed increases for those to download in a reasonable amount of time. And by reasonable, I mean about an hour.

We finally beat mcn

MCN wrote:For downloading to be worth it for me, we would need to see games bigger than a blu-ray could hold, so we're talking over 50GB. And we're going to need to see some MAJOR speed increases for those to download in a reasonable amount of time. And by reasonable, I mean about an hour.

You can download 50GB in a little over two hours with a current, publicly-available internet package, so presumably your 50GB-in-an-hour dream isn't as far off as you think it is.

Karlprof wrote:

MCN wrote:For downloading to be worth it for me, we would need to see games bigger than a blu-ray could hold, so we're talking over 50GB. And we're going to need to see some MAJOR speed increases for those to download in a reasonable amount of time. And by reasonable, I mean about an hour.

You can download 50GB in a little over two hours with a current, publicly-available internet package, so presumably your 50GB-in-an-hour dream isn't as far off as you think it is.

Great. All they need to do is roll it out everywhere, and double the speed. Then I'll be sated.

You're pathetic, and you've lost, and you know it.

Stop posting, MCN.

Why would you need to download a 50GB game right now anyway? If we're comparing download services to current-gen infrastructure, are there even any games available over 50GB? Is GTA IV about 9GB?

By the time there is, then you'll probably be able to download it in an hour.

You're judging the download service on a limit that isn't even available on current-gen consoles yet? Hardly fair, is it?

MCN wrote:
Great. All they need to do is roll it out everywhere, and double the speed. Then I'll be sated.

lol what an awful post

OK then. Yay money grabbing publishers. It's technology, so it must be infallibly good! Nothing could ever go wrong, and I'll take the technology roadmaps for granted!

Parksey wrote:Why would you need to download a 50GB right now anyway? If we're comparing download services to current-gen infrastructure, are there even any games available over 50GB? Is GTA IV about 9GB?

By the time there is, then you'll probably be able to download it in an hour.

GTA IV on steam is ~12GB I think.

Parksey wrote:Why would you need to download a 50GB game right now anyway? If we're comparing download services to current-gen infrastructure, are there even any games available over 50GB? Is GTA IV about 9GB?

By the time there is, then you'll probably be able to download it in an hour.

You're judging the download service on a limit that isn't even available on current-gen consoles yet? Hardly fair, is it?

Take nothing for granted. Just because something might improve enough to make it viable, it also might not. I'd love bigger games with more to do, and given the right pricing and infrastructure, I'd happily download it. I'll support downloading as soon as I know without doubt that it will work and it will benefit the consumer.

MCN wrote:OK then. Yay money grabbing publishers. It's technology, so it must be infallibly good! Nothing could ever go wrong, and I'll take the technology roadmaps for granted!

What does this even mean?

MCN wrote:OK then. Yay money grabbing publishers. It's technology, so it must be infallibly good! Nothing could ever go wrong, and I'll take the technology roadmaps for granted!

Because current publisher business models don't try and make as much profit from consumers as possible? You're arguably at the opposite end of the spectrum - because you don't fully understand the technicalities behind a download only infrastructure (and I'll admit to only knowing a fraction of what people like Karlprof do on the subject), you're immediately suspicious that it's only purpose is to con you out of more money.

The only worthwhile point you've put forward is the lack of a second hand market, but I'm sure that's probably been negated already.

MCN wrote:

Parksey wrote:Why would you need to download a 50GB game right now anyway? If we're comparing download services to current-gen infrastructure, are there even any games available over 50GB? Is GTA IV about 9GB?

By the time there is, then you'll probably be able to download it in an hour.

You're judging the download service on a limit that isn't even available on current-gen consoles yet? Hardly fair, is it?

Take nothing for granted. Just because something might improve enough to make it viable, it also might not. I'd love bigger games with more to do, and given the right pricing and infrastructure, I'd happily download it. I'll support downloading as soon as I know without doubt that it will work and it will benefit the consumer.

IT DOES WORK, LOOK AT STEAM, IT'S WORKING RIGHT NOW, GOOD LORD.

Winckle wrote:

MCN wrote:

Parksey wrote:Why would you need to download a 50GB game right now anyway? If we're comparing download services to current-gen infrastructure, are there even any games available over 50GB? Is GTA IV about 9GB?

By the time there is, then you'll probably be able to download it in an hour.

You're judging the download service on a limit that isn't even available on current-gen consoles yet? Hardly fair, is it?

Take nothing for granted. Just because something might improve enough to make it viable, it also might not. I'd love bigger games with more to do, and given the right pricing and infrastructure, I'd happily download it. I'll support downloading as soon as I know without doubt that it will work and it will benefit the consumer.

IT DOES WORK, LOOK AT STEAM, IT'S WORKING RIGHT NOW, GOOD LORD.

It's too slow for me. I hated waiting strawberry floating ages to play the games. I guess I'm too impulsive.

MCN wrote:

Winckle wrote:

MCN wrote:

Parksey wrote:Why would you need to download a 50GB game right now anyway? If we're comparing download services to current-gen infrastructure, are there even any games available over 50GB? Is GTA IV about 9GB?

By the time there is, then you'll probably be able to download it in an hour.

You're judging the download service on a limit that isn't even available on current-gen consoles yet? Hardly fair, is it?

Take nothing for granted. Just because something might improve enough to make it viable, it also might not. I'd love bigger games with more to do, and given the right pricing and infrastructure, I'd happily download it. I'll support downloading as soon as I know without doubt that it will work and it will benefit the consumer.

IT DOES WORK, LOOK AT STEAM, IT'S WORKING RIGHT NOW, GOOD LORD.

It's too slow for me. I hated waiting strawberry floating ages to play the games. I guess I'm too impulsive.

Ah yes, too slow, it would be far faster to wait for the game to arrive in the post. Or to spend hours finding it in a shop.

Woah, that felt a bit like deja-vu.

MCN wrote:

Parksey wrote:Why would you need to download a 50GB game right now anyway? If we're comparing download services to current-gen infrastructure, are there even any games available over 50GB? Is GTA IV about 9GB?

By the time there is, then you'll probably be able to download it in an hour.

You're judging the download service on a limit that isn't even available on current-gen consoles yet? Hardly fair, is it?

Take nothing for granted. Just because something might improve enough to make it viable, it also might not. I'd love bigger games with more to do, and given the right pricing and infrastructure, I'd happily download it. I'll support downloading as soon as I know without doubt that it will work and it will benefit the consumer.

Aren't you taking it for granted that a 50GB game will eventually be possibly on disc-based mediums?

As I've said, you're judging current download systems with this 50GB yardstick which consoles have even yet to get near. You just move the goalposts when it suits your arguments, allowing yourself to "take things for granted" when it involves consoles, but constantly implying the uncertainty of the future when you attack downloading.

Parksey wrote:Aren't you taking it for granted that a 50GB game will eventually be possibly on disc-based mediums?

As I've said, you're judging current download systems with this 50GB yardstick which consoles have even yet to get near. You just move the goalposts when it suits your arguments, allowing yourself to "take things for granted" when it involves consoles, but constantly implying the uncertainty of the future when you attack downloading.

What, pray tell, is the maximum capacity of a Blu-Ray disc? Oh, that's right, it's 50GB. Hence that particular yardstick.